Dataset Information

Study protocol for SPARED trial: randomised non-inferiority phase III trial comparing dexamethasone on day 1 with dexamethasone on days 1-4, combined with neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, palonosetron and olanzapine (5 mg) in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Dexamethasone (DEX) is administered for multiple days to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC); however, its notorious side effects have been widely reported. Although our multicentre randomised double-blind comparative study verified non-inferiority of sparing DEX after day 2 of chemotherapy when combined with neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1-RA) and palonosetron (Palo) for patients receiving HEC regimen, DEX sparing was not non-inferior in patients receiving cisplatin (CDDP)-based HEC regimens in subgroup analysis. Recently, the efficacy of the addition of olanzapine (OLZ) to standard triple antiemetic therapy on HEC has been demonstrated by several phase III trials. This study aims to confirm non-inferiority of DEX sparing when it is combined with NK-1RA, Palo and OLZ in patients receiving CDDP-based HEC regimens.

Methods and analysis

This is a randomised, double-blind, phase III trial. Patients who are scheduled to receive CDDP ?50?mg/m² as initial chemotherapy are eligible. Patients are randomly assigned to receive either DEX on days 1-4 or DEX on day 1 combined with NK1-RA, Palo and OLZ (5?mg). The primary endpoint is complete response (CR) rate, defined as no emesis and no rescue medications during the delayed phase (24-120?hours post-CDDP administration). The non-inferiority margin is set at -15.0%. We assume that CR rates would be 75% in both arms. Two hundred and sixty-two patients are required for at least 80% power to confirm non-inferiority at a one-sided significance level of 2.5%. After considering the possibility of attrition, we set our final required sample size of 280.

Ethics and dissemination

The institutional review board approved the study protocol at each of the participating centres. The trial result will be presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

Trial registration number

UMIN000032269.

SUBMITTER: Minatogawa H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7747608 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Study protocol for SPARED trial: randomised non-inferiority phase III trial comparing dexamethasone on day 1 with dexamethasone on days 1-4, combined with neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, palonosetron and olanzapine (5 mg) in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

Minatogawa Hiroko H Izawa Naoki N Kawaguchi Takashi T Miyaji Tempei T Shimomura Kazuhiro K Kazunori Honda H Iihara Hirotoshi H Ohno Yasushi Y Inada Yusuke Y Arioka Hitoshi H Morita Hajime H Hida Naoya N Sugawara Mitsuhiro M Katada Chikatoshi C Nawata Shuichi S Ishida Hiroo H Tsuboya Ayako A Tsuda Takashi T Yamaguchi Takuhiro T Nakajima Takako Eguchi TE

BMJ open 20201217 12

<h4>Introduction</h4>Dexamethasone (DEX) is administered for multiple days to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC); however, its notorious side effects have been widely reported. Although our multicentre randomised double-blind comparative study verified non-inferiority of sparing DEX after day 2 of chemotherapy when combined with neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1-RA) and palonosetron (Palo) for patients receiving HEC re ...[more]

PMID: 33334838

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceA daily dose with 6 mg of dexamethasone is recommended for up to 10 days in patients with severe and critical COVID-19, but a higher dose may benefit those with more severe disease.ObjectiveTo assess the effects of 12 mg/d vs 6 mg/d of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia.Design, setting, and participantsA multicenter, randomized clinical trial was conducted between August 2020 and May 2021 at 26 hospitals in Europe and India and included 1000 adults with confirmed COVID-19 requiring at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation. End of 90-day follow-up was on August 19, 2021.InterventionsPatients were randomized 1:1 to 12 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 503) or 6 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 497) for up to 10 days.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support (invasive mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, or kidney replacement therapy) at 28 days and was adjusted for stratification variables. Of the 8 prespecified secondary outcomes, 5 are included in this analysis (the number of days alive without life support at 90 days, the number of days alive out of the hospital at 90 days, mortality at 28 days and at 90 days, and ≥1 serious adverse reactions at 28 days).ResultsOf the 1000 randomized patients, 982 were included (median age, 65 [IQR, 55-73] years; 305 [31%] women) and primary outcome data were available for 971 (491 in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 480 in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group). The median number of days alive without life support was 22.0 days (IQR, 6.0-28.0 days) in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 20.5 days (IQR, 4.0-28.0 days) in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted mean difference, 1.3 days [95% CI, 0-2.6 days]; P = .07). Mortality at 28 days was 27.1% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 32.3% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.86 [99% CI, 0.68-1.08]). Mortality at 90 days was 32.0% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 37.7% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.87 [99% CI, 0.70-1.07]). Serious adverse reactions, including septic shock and invasive fungal infections, occurred in 11.3% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 13.4% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.83 [99% CI, 0.54-1.29]).Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, 12 mg/d of dexamethasone compared with 6 mg/d of dexamethasone did not result in statistically significantly more days alive without life support at 28 days. However, the trial may have been underpowered to identify a significant difference.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04509973 and ctri.nic.in Identifier: CTRI/2020/10/028731.

Project description:BackgroundDespite significant progress in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) by using dexamethasone combined with palonosetron for patients who received moderate-emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), some of these patients still suffer from CINV. We evaluated whether aprepitant combined with palonosetron can improve the efficacy in the prevention of CINV in patients receiving MEC.MethodsThis was a single-centre, open-label, phase III, randomized controlled trial, which was done at the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University of China. The registered patients planned to receive mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and 5-fluorouracil) but had not received any chemotherapy previously. The patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to the aprepitant group (aprepitant 125 mg orally on day 1, 80 mg on day 2-3) and the dexamethasone group (dexamethasone 10 mg intravenously on day 1, 5 mg on days 2 and 3), both groups with palonosetron 0.25 mg intravenously on day 1. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved a complete response (CR), defined as the absence of vomiting and no use of rescue medications in the overall phase (0-120 h). The primary outcome and safety were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which excluded all patients who used estazolam within 24 h before registration and those who refused to keep a diary documenting the severity of nausea, frequency of vomiting, and the use of rescue therapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02909478.FindingsBetween Sep 1, 2017, and Oct 23, 2019, 320 patients were enrolled, and 315 patients were evaluated. The proportion of patients who achieved CR was significantly higher with aprepitant than that noted with dexamethasone in the overall phase (88.8% vs. 74.2%; P = 0.0010; rate difference, RD 15%, 95% CI, 6% to 23%) and in the delayed phase (25-120 h), 90.6% vs. 75.5%, (P < 0.0001; RD 15%, 95%CI, 7% to 23%). No significant difference of CR rate was observed in the acute phase (0-24 h), 93.8% vs. 93.5%, (P = 0.94; RD 0%, 95% CI, -5% to 6%)). In the overall phase, the incidence of insomnia (P < 0.0010), dyspepsia (P = 0.038), and flushing (P = 0.0010) reported by the patients was significantly higher in the dexamethasone group than that in the aprepitant group.InterpretationAprepitant combined with palonosetron is superior to dexamethasone combined with palonosetron in patients who received the MEC regimen mFOLFOX6 in terms of preventing CINV.FundingThe National Key R&D Program of China (2019YFC1316000) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81974369).

Project description:BACKGROUND:The current antiemetic prophylaxis for patients treated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) included the olanzapine-based triplet and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK-1RAs)-based triplet. However, which one shows better antiemetic effect remained unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We systematically reviewed 43 trials, involving 16,609 patients with HEC, which compared the following antiemetics at therapeutic dose range for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: olanzapine, aprepitant, casopitant, fosaprepitant, netupitant, and rolapitant. The main outcomes were the proportion of patients who achieved no nausea, complete response (CR), and drug-related adverse events. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS:Olanzapine-based triple regimens showed significantly better no-nausea rate in overall phase and delayed phase than aprepitant-based triplet (odds ratios 3.18, 3.00, respectively), casopitant-based triplet (3.78, 4.12, respectively), fosaprepitant-based triplet (3.08, 4.10, respectively), rolapitant-based triplet (3.45, 3.20, respectively), and conventional duplex regimens (4.66, 4.38, respectively). CRs of olanzapine-based triplet were roughly equal to different NK-1RAs-based triplet but better than the conventional duplet. Moreover, no significant drug-related adverse events were observed in olanzapine-based triple regimens when compared with NK-1RAs-based triple regimens and duplex regimens. Additionally, the costs of olanzapine-based regimens were obviously much lower than the NK-1RA-based regimens. CONCLUSION:Olanzapine-based triplet stood out in terms of nausea control and drug price but represented no significant difference of CRs in comparison with NK-1RAs-based triplet. Olanzapine-based triple regimens should be an optional antiemetic choice for patients with HEC, especially those suffering from delayed phase nausea. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:According to the results of this study, olanzapine-based triple antiemetic regimens were superior in both overall and delayed-phase nausea control when compared with various neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists-based triple regimens in patients with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Olanzapine-based triplet was outstanding in terms of nausea control and drug price. For cancer patients with HEC, especially those suffering from delayed-phase nausea, olanzapine-based triple regimens should be an optional antiemetic choice.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the efficacy of orvepitant (10 or 30?mg given once daily, orally for 4 weeks), a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, compared with placebo in reducing the intensity of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor (EGFRI)-induced intense pruritus. DESIGN:Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. SETTING:15 hospitals in Italy and five hospitals in the UK. PARTICIPANTS:44 patients aged ?18 years receiving an EGFRI for a histologically confirmed malignant solid tumour and experiencing moderate or intense pruritus after EGFRI treatment. INTERVENTION:30 or 10?mg orvepitant or placebo tablets once daily for 4 weeks (randomised 1:1:1). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary endpoint was change from baseline in mean patient-recorded numerical rating scale (NRS) score (over the last three recordings) at week 4. Secondary outcome measures were NRS score, verbal rating scale score, Skindex-16 and Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire at each study visit (baseline, weeks 1, 4, 8); rescue medication use; EGFRI dose reduction; and study withdrawal because of intense uncontrolled pruritus. RESULTS:The trial was terminated early because of recruitment challenges; only 44 of the planned 90 patients were randomised. All patients were analysed for efficacy and safety. Mean NRS score change from baseline to week 4 was -2.78 (SD: 2.64) points in the 30?mg group, -3.04 (SD: 3.06) points in the 10?mg group and -3.21 (SD: 1.77) points in the placebo group; the difference between orvepitant and placebo was not statistically significant. No safety signal was detected. Adverse events related to orvepitant (asthenia, dizziness, dry mouth, hyperhidrosis) were all of mild or moderate severity. CONCLUSIONS:Orvepitant was safe and well tolerated. No difference in NRS score between the orvepitant and placebo groups was observed at the week 4 primary endpoint. A number of explanations for this outcome are possible. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:EudraCT2013-002763-25.

Dataset Information

Study protocol for SPARED trial: randomised non-inferiority phase III trial comparing dexamethasone on day 1 with dexamethasone on days 1-4, combined with neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, palonosetron and olanzapine (5 mg) in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Trial registration number

Publications

Study protocol for SPARED trial: randomised non-inferiority phase III trial comparing dexamethasone on day 1 with dexamethasone on days 1-4, combined with neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, palonosetron and olanzapine (5 mg) in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets